incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus
Date Fri, 29 Mar 2013 01:26:31 GMT
Hi Dave,


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:38 PM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Vote on personal matters: majority vote vs consensus

>
>On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
>> Hey Ross,
>> 
>> 
>>>>> I disagree. Chris' proposal removes the IPMC thus making the board
>>> legally
>>>>> responsible for everything that committee does today. Yes it replaces
>>>> it
>>>>> with an oversight body, but how does that scale?
>>>> 
>>>> Please let me respectfully disagree with your interpretation of my
>>>> Incubator
>>>> deconstruction proposal [1]. In fact, it does not make the board
>>>>legally
>>>> responsible
>>>> in any different way than the board is currently responsible for its
>>>> plethora of
>>>> TLPs -- IOW, it doesn't change a thing. It basically suggests that
>>>> incoming projects
>>>> can simply fast track to (t)LPs from the get go, so long as they have
>>>>> = 3
>>>> ASF members
>>>> present to help execute and manage the Incubator "process" which still
>>>> exists in
>>>> my proposed deconstruction.
>>> 
>>> My point is that all the oversight currently provided by the IPMC would
>>> have to be provided by the board. We already know that having three
>>> mentors
>>> does not guarantee adequate support for podlings.
>> 
>> I guess I would ask "what oversight"? There is no global IPMC oversight.
>> Ever since Joe's experiment, and even before, the podlings that get
>>through
>> the Incubator (and I've taken quite a few now, and recently, so I think
>>I
>> can speak from a position of experience here within the last few years),
>> are the ones that have active mentors and *distributed*, not
>>*centralized*
>> oversight.
>> 
>> IOW, I'm not seeing any IPMC oversight at the moment. I'm seeing good
>> mentors,
>> located in each podling, distributed, that get podlings through. Those
>>that
>> stall well they need help. Usually the help is debated endlessly, and
>>not
>> solved,
>> or simply solved with more active/better mentors.
>
>My experience as a shepherd shows that you can in fact recognize podling
>issues and eventually get them to the point where graduation of one kind
>or another happens. Two examples:
>
>EasyAnt graduating to Apache Ant.
>
>Etch finally graduated with a small, but sufficient PMC.

I wasn't stating that you can't do this :)

In fact, you are precisely the example of what I'm talking about when I
say, 
'good' mentors. You actively volunteered for a new system created by
Jukka, 
to care about other podlings and sign off on their reports, and monitor
them.
Awesome sauce. Great job.

OTOH, I've *never* volunteered to be a shepherd, b/c honestly I think it's
an additional name/responsibility that's fairly meaningless. I've been
signing
off on other podling reports that I see for years. As have other mentors,
Joe S
used to do that -- Ant and Alex and others have done that too. Even before
there
was a name, 'shepherd' for this.

>
>> So, that's my whole point. You either agree with me that there is no
>>IPMC
>> oversight at the moment (for years now), and that really podlings are
>>TLPs
>> (well the ones that graduate within a fixed set of time as Sam was
>>trying
>> to measure
>> before, or simply point out that is) or you still believe that there is
>> oversight
>> within the IPMC.
>
>I don't think it is an either / or. The current amount of oversight for
>any podling is a function of mentors, current IPMC dynamics, and real
>life influences.
>
>The shepherds serve a purpose as more of a divining rod into that
>dynamic, many solutions are possible, and the podling needs to be pushed
>into making choices.

Sure, I agree with that.

And rather than generically stating there are choices, and we have many to
choose amongst,
I've actually written my thoughts down about a choice, a series of
observations, a proposed
solution and deconstruction of the Incubator.

Cheers,
Chris

>
>Regards,
>Dave
>
>> I personally don't. That's why I wrote the proposal. And
>> I think
>> that's at least evident to me and more than a few others that that's the
>> problem here 
>> and that's why I don't think the Incubator should exist anymore in its
>> current form
>> and should be deconstructed :)
>> 
>> Thanks for your comments and conversation and for listening.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>> 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
>> Senior Computer Scientist
>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
>> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
>> WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message